Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Analysis of Public Comments
on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00:
Accountability and Assistance for Schools and School Districts
June 2012
(Note: the excerpts from regulations included below are from the proposed regulations as published for public comment after a vote by
the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on April 24, 2012. Tracked changes show changes from those regulations;
sometimes these changes are to the original (current) regulations, sometimes to the amendments to those regulations proposed in
April.)
Key to Abbreviations
AAAC = one or more members of the Accountability and Assistance Advisory Council of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
Board = Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, or as it was formerly known, Board of Education
ESE = Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
MTA = Massachusetts Teachers Association
TL = Thomas Lamey
Source and Summary of Comment
ESE’s Response
Recommended Revision(s)
The DIPs and school turnaround plans
are required by G.L. c. 69, ss. 1I and
1J, the turnaround plans for the
districts formerly declared
underperforming already exist and
were required under the former 603
CMR 2.04(4)(b) (as it stood before
April 27, 2010), and the Level 4
District Plans are a necessary tool for
improving education in Level 4
districts so as to prevent the eventual
necessity of placing them in Level 5. A
district has discretion to use its Level 4
District Plan as its DIP (see definition
Recommend revising the
definition of “Level 4 District
Plan” as follows:
“Level 4 District Plan shall
mean a plan for improvement
that a district placed in Level 4
is required to develop and
implement pursuant to 603
CMR 2.05(8)(b), (c), and (d).
In the case of a district in Level
4 that was declared
underperforming by the Board
before April 27, 2010, Level 4
District Plan shall mean the
General:
1. AAAC: It is confusing to have so many plans
under these regulations—the Level 4 District
Plans, the DIPs, the turnaround plans for the
districts declared underperforming before April
27, 2010, and the school turnaround plans.
Page 1 of 9
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
ESE’s Response
of “Level 4 District Plan”), thus
reducing the number of plans.
However, the use of “turnaround plan”
in the definition of “Level 4 District
Plan” to refer to the improvement
plans created by districts formerly
declared underperforming may be
confusing, given the current definition
of “turnaround plan.”
ESE believes that it might also help
with clarity to add to the definition of
“turnaround plan” a reference to G.L.
c. 69, ss. 1J and 1K.
Recommended Revision(s)
current version of the plan the
district adopted as a result of
having been so declared. A
Level 4 District Plan may serve
as the district’s District
Improvement Plan.”
Recommend revising the
definition of “turnaround plan”
as follows:
“Turnaround plan shall mean
the plan pursuant to G.L. c. 69,
s. 1J or 1K, to improve student
achievement in a Level 4 or
Level 5 school or a Level 5
district; the plan may also
serve as the School
Improvement Plan or District
Improvement Plan.
2.02: Definitions
2. MTA: Definition of “annual performance
determination” should be revised to add science
to the named areas of indicators for the
determination:
“ . . . relative to indicators including but not
limited to achievement and improvement in
English language arts and mathematics and
science, in accordance with the federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ESE agrees that since it is planning to
use achievement and improvement in
science in making the annual
performance determination, a reference
to science should be added to its
definition.
Page 2 of 9
Recommend revising the end
of the definition of “annual
performance determination” as
follows:
“ . . . relative to indicators
including but not limited to
achievement and improvement
in English language arts,
mathematics, and science, in
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
(ESEA).”
ESE’s Response
Reasons:
Regulations should be as clear as possible for
district leaders and educators
 Including science is consistent with the waiver
approved by the federal USDOE and is included
in other sections of the regulations – see CPI
definition

3. AAAC: Definitions of “district or school
district” and “school” should contain references,
in the last clause on charter schools, to
Massachusetts’ approved NCLB waiver. The
question is raised whether “federal law” is the
appropriate way to refer to it.
Reason: Aside from state law, the provisions of
the waiver govern accountability for charter
schools. AAAC members questioned whether
“federal law” is an accurate description, or the
best description, of the waiver provisions.
4. AAAC: Definitions of “district or school
district” and “school” should state that charter
schools will be put in levels and refer to the
method of putting them in levels (e.g. guidance).
Reason: For transparency and completeness of
information.
Recommended Revision(s)
accordance with the federal
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA).”
The term “federal law” covers approval
by a federal agency, the U.S.
Department of Education, of ESE’s
application for a waiver from
provisions of a federal law, the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (ESEA). Its
use here is appropriate.
No revision recommended.
A statement of what action the
Department shall take with respect to
charter schools is not appropriate for a
definition, but for a regulation proper.
The regulations at 603 CMR 2.00,
however, do not apply to charter
schools. ESE plans to present the
Board with proposed amendments to
603 CMR 1.00, the regulations on
No revision recommended.
Page 3 of 9
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
5. MTA: Definitions of “district or school district”
and “school” should state that charter schools
will be put in levels. The following language
should be added:
ESE’s Response
charter schools, dealing with levels for
charter schools.
Recommended Revision(s)
Please see response to comment #4.
No revision recommended.
Advisory councils to the Board are
created by the Legislature by statute:
G.L. c. 15, s. 1G. ESE will take the
comment under advisement and
consider what options there are for
creating an external advisory group for
this purpose.
No revision recommended.
“Charter schools will be assigned accountability
system levels.”


Reasons:
Addition of “and federal law” does not make it
clear that charter schools will receive
accountability labels under the provision of the
NCLB waiver.
As written, it appears that nothing in these
regulations applies to charter schools.
2.04: Levels 1-3
6. MTA: Add the following language as 2.04(1):
“DESE will convene an external advisory group
(in addition to the Accountability and Assistance
Advisory Council) consisting of practitioners,
data experts, and representatives of professional
associations to assist the DESE in developing
policy and methodology for defining
performance levels, placement of
schools/districts in each level and movement
among the levels, and the addition of
performance indicators to the system. The DESE
will consult with the Advisory Group prior to
Page 4 of 9
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
making any changes to the policy and
methodology of the accountability system
designations. The Advisory Group will be
consulted regularly throughout the development
and implementation process.”
ESE’s Response
Recommended Revision(s)
Reason: There are significant consequences to
these label assignments; there should be a
specified process (and timeline) if they are to be
changed and there should be oversight. Process
and oversight should be added to regulations.
7. MTA: In 2.04(1)(a),(b), and (c) and 2.04(2),
“guidance” in the references to the Department
publishing guidance with respect to placement of
schools and districts in Levels 1, 2 and 3 should
in all cases be replaced by “additional
regulations.”
Reason: There are significant consequences to
these label assignments; there should be a
specified process (and timeline) if they are to be
changed and there should be oversight. Process
and oversight should be added to regulations.
The regulations should not be so
specific that minor changes to state or
federal policy would necessitate
amending the regulations. Also, the
possibility may arise that levels need to
be redefined based on the amount of
assistance ESE has the capacity to
provide, or to prevent a
disproportionate number of schools or
districts from being classified in one or
more of the levels.
Recommend revising the
second sentence in 2.04(1)(a)
as follows:
“The Department shall publish
guidance for schools as to what
performance leads to
placement in what level,
including a description of the
methodology used.”
However, ESE agrees that for
transparency, in order to specify the
process and allow for oversight, a
description of the methodology used to
determine placement should be
published in the guidance for schools
in Levels 1 and 2 as well as in the
guidance for schools in Level 3.
8. AAAC: It is confusing for ESE to have said in
The regulations should not be so
Page 5 of 9
No revision recommended.
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
its waiver application that a district’s level would
be determined by its lowest-performing school,
and then to have the language in 2.04(1)(c) (on
Levels 1-2) and 2.04(2) (on Level 3) leave the
determination of districts’ status to guidance,
thus implying that a district’s status will not
necessarily be determined by its lowestperforming school.
Reason: The regulations should be consistent
with ESE’s approved waiver application. It is
questionable what the motivation is for the
current language.
9. TL: Recommends that 2.04(3), requiring Level 3
districts to complete a self-assessment, be
amended to add a requirement that districts and
schools in Level 3 consult with their District and
School Assistance Center (DSAC).
Reason: This would clearly establish the
requirement to use DSAC services.
ESE’s Response
specific that minor changes to state or
federal policy would necessitate
amending the regulations.
Recommended Revision(s)
Also, the possibility may arise that
levels need to be redefined based on
the amount of assistance ESE has the
capacity to provide, or to prevent a
disproportionate number of schools or
districts from being classified in one or
more of the levels.
The regulations should not be so
specific that minor changes to state or
federal policy would necessitate
amending the regulations. The
possibility may arise that DSACs have
insufficient capacity to provide
effective assistance to all Level 3
districts, depending on the level of
funding in future years.
No revision recommended.
It is agreed that there is no provision
for Level 4 districts in the statute;
however, ESE is promulgating the
regulations relating to Level 4 districts
through its authority under M.G.L. c.
69, s. 1B, to promulgate regulations as
No revision recommended.
2.05: Level 4
10. MTA: The regulations referring to Level 4
districts are inconsistent with G.L. c. 69.
Therefore ESE may not impose such legal
obligations on school districts: Level 4 districts
cannot be created by regulatory fiat.
Reason: There is no statutory authority for the
Page 6 of 9
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
creation of Level 4 districts: G.L. c. 69 does not
provide for underperforming districts, only for
chronically underperforming districts.
ESE’s Response
necessary to fulfill the purposes of
chapter 69.
Districts are placed in Level 4 if they
have a Level 4 school; they must then
include in the school turnaround plan
provisions for improving district
systems of school support and
intervention (see 2.05(8)(a)), thus
improving education in the Level 4
school and other schools in the district.
Districts may also be placed by the
Board in Level 4 based on “serious
deficiencies, relating to one or more
district standards, that are likely if they
are not addressed effectively and in a
timely manner to have a substantial
negative effect on student performance
in the district, putting the district at risk
of being placed in Level 5.”
(2.05(1)(b)) In this case the regulations
on Level 4 districts are aimed at giving
reasonable warning to districts that
they are at risk of placement in Level
5. They are aimed at preventing
districts from having to be placed in
Level 5 and put under receivership.
The regulations provide for ESE to
help Level 4 districts by means of a
Level 4 District Plan. See 2.05(8)(b),
(c), and (d). In addition, they provide
Page 7 of 9
Recommended Revision(s)
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
11. MTA: Should the Department continue having
regulations about Level 4 districts, it should not
require that any district with a Level 4 school be
placed in Level 4. The following change should
be made to 2.05(1)(a):
“(a) A district may be placed in Level 4 if any of
its schools has been placed in Level 4, pursuant
to 603 CMR 2.05 (2).”
ESE’s Response
for Level 4 districts that have their
Level 4 District Plans approved by
ESE to receive priority for ESE
assistance. See 2.05(8)(d).
ESE would like to ensure that all
districts with Level 4 schools are
subject to the requirement in
2.05(8)(a), as revised under comment
#13 below, that they include in the
schools’ turnaround plans provisions
for improving district systems for
school support and intervention. To be
subject to the requirement as revised,
they need to be Level 4 districts.
Recommended Revision(s)
No revision recommended.
Also, making the change
recommended in the comment would
constitute a major change in the
Framework for District Accountability
and Assistance that should not be made
without having had extensive
communication with districts.
12. AAAC: Suggests language be added to
2.05(1)(b) providing that the lowest-performing
districts should receive priority for placement in
Level 4.
Reason: Now that the regulations no longer have
as a requirement for placement in Level 4 that a
district be in the lowest 10% of districts as
Districts that are subject to placement
in Level 4 under 2.05(1)(b) will still be
very low-performing, given the
criterion in 2.05(1)(b) for placement in
Level 4 that districts have “serious
deficiencies . . . that are likely if they
are not addressed effectively and in a
timely manner to have a substantial
Page 8 of 9
No revision recommended.
Attachment 4: Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 2.00
Source and Summary of Comment
determined pursuant to 2.06(1)(a), there is a need
to make sure that in placing districts in Level 4
the focus is still on the lowest-performing
districts.
ESE’s Response
negative effect on student performance
in the district, putting the district at risk
of being placed in Level 5.” However,
it may sometimes be that there are
special circumstances in a district, for
instance with respect to leadership and
governance, that would make it a
stronger candidate for placement in
Level 4 than a slightly lowerperforming district.
13. AAAC: Suggests revision of 2.05(8)(a) along the
following lines:
“(a)Each Level 4 district shall include, in the
turnaround plan developed pursuant to 603
CMR 2.05(5)(a) for each of its Level 4
schools, provisions for the improvement of
district systems for school support and
intervention in accordance with the condition
for school effectiveness in 603 CMR
2.03(4)(b)(1).”
ESE agrees that it is better to put this
requirement in the active voice with
the Level 4 district as the subject of the
sentence than to leave it in the passive.
Reason: Clarity and readability—no substantive
change.
Page 9 of 9
Recommended Revision(s)
Recommend making the
suggested revision.